Reply to “Correspondence on “Re‐examining remission definitions in RA: considering the DAS28, CRP level and patient global assessment” by Felson et al.”

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
David T. Felson ◽  
Diane Lacaille ◽  
Michael P. LaValley ◽  
Daniel Aletaha
2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 6-6
Author(s):  
A. Ortolan ◽  
S. Ramiro ◽  
F. A. Van Gaalen ◽  
T. K. Kvien ◽  
R. B. M. Landewé ◽  
...  

Background:Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) is a composite index measuring disease activity in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). It includes questions from the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), Patient Global Assessment (PGA), and inflammation biomarkers. However, ASDAS calculation is not always possible because PGA is sometimes not collected.Objectives:To develop an alternative ASDAS to be used in research settings when PGA is unavailable.Methods:Longitudinal data from 4 axSpA cohorts and 2 RCTs were combined. Observations were randomly split in a development (N=1026) and a validation cohort (N=1059). Substitutes of PGA by BASDAI total score, single or combined individual BASDAI questions, and a constant value, were considered. In the development cohort, conversion factors for each substitute were defined by Generalized Estimating Equations. Validation was performed in the validation cohort according to the OMERACT filter, taking into consideration: 1) Truth (agreement with original-ASDAS in the continuous score, by intraclass correlation coefficient -ICC- and in disease activity states, by weighted kappa) 2) Discrimination (standardized mean difference –SMD- of ASDAS scores between high/low disease activity states defined by external anchors e.g Patient Acceptable Symptom State –PASS-; agreement -kappa- in the % of patients reaching ASDAS improvement criteria according to alternative vs. original formulae) 3) Feasibility.Results:Taking all psychometric properties into account and comparing the different formulae (Table), alternative-ASDAS using BASDAI total as PGA replacement proved to be: 1) truthful (agreement with original-ASDAS: ICC=0.98, kappa=0.90); 2) discriminative: it could discriminate between high/low disease activity states (e.g. scores between PASS no/yes: SMD=1.37 versus original-ASDAS SMD=1.43) and was sensitive to change (agreement with original-ASDAS in major improvement/clinically important improvement criteria: kappa=0.93/0.88; 3) feasible (BASDAI total often available; conversion coefficient≈1).Table.Psychometric properties of alternative ASDAS formulaeConclusion:Alternative-ASDAS using BASDAI total score as PGA replacement is the most truthful, discriminative and feasible instrument. This index enables ASDAS calculation in existing cohorts without PGA.Disclosure of Interests:Augusta Ortolan: None declared, Sofia Ramiro: None declared, Floris A. van Gaalen: None declared, Tore K. Kvien Grant/research support from: Received grants from Abbvie, Hospira/Pfizer, MSD and Roche (not relevant for this abstract)., Consultant of: Have received personal fees from Abbvie, Biogen, BMS, Celltrion, Eli Lily, Hospira/Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Orion Pharma, Roche, Sandoz, UCB, Sanofi and Mylan (not relevant for this abstract)., Paid instructor for: Have received personal fees from Abbvie, Biogen, BMS, Celltrion, Eli Lily, Hospira/Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Orion Pharma, Roche, Sandoz, UCB, Sanofi and Mylan (not relevant for this abstract)., Speakers bureau: Have received personal fees from Abbvie, Biogen, BMS, Celltrion, Eli Lily, Hospira/Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Orion Pharma, Roche, Sandoz, UCB, Sanofi and Mylan (not relevant for this abstract)., Robert B.M. Landewé Consultant of: AbbVie; AstraZeneca; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Eli Lilly & Co.; Galapagos NV; Novartis; Pfizer; UCB Pharma, Pedro M Machado Consultant of: PMM: Abbvie, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, Speakers bureau: PMM: Abbvie, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, Adeline Ruyssen-Witrand Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Pfizer, Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, Lilly, Mylan, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi-Genzyme, Astrid van Tubergen Consultant of: Novartis, Caroline Bastiaenen: None declared, Désirée van der Heijde Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Cyxone, Daiichi, Eisai, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB Pharma; Director of Imaging Rheumatology BV


2021 ◽  
Vol 49 (2) ◽  
pp. 487-496
Author(s):  
Yong-Beom Park ◽  
Jun-Ho Kim ◽  
Chul-Won Ha ◽  
Dong-Hyun Lee

Background: Although platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has potential as a regenerative treatment for knee osteoarthritis, its efficacy varies. Compositional differences among types of PRP could affect clinical outcomes, but the biological characterization of PRP is lacking. Purpose: To assess the efficacy of intra-articular PRP injection in knee osteoarthritis as compared with hyaluronic acid (HA) injection and to determine whether the clinical efficacy of PRP is associated with its biological characteristics. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: A total of 110 patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis received a single injection of leukocyte-rich PRP (1 commercial kit) or HA. Clinical data were assessed at baseline and at 6 weeks and 3 and 6 months after injection. The primary endpoint was an improvement in the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score at 6 months, and the secondary endpoints were improvements in scores based on the Patient Global Assessment, the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and the Samsung Medical Center patellofemoral score. Cell counts and concentrations of growth factors and cytokines in the injected PRP were assessed to determine their association with clinical outcomes. Results: PRP showed significantly improvement in IKDC subjective scores at 6 months (11.5 in the PRP group vs 6.3 in the HA group; P = .029). There were no significant differences between groups in other clinical outcomes. The Patient Global Assessment score at 6 months was better in the PRP group ( P = .035). The proportion of patients who scored above the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for VAS at 6 months was significantly higher in the PRP group ( P = .044). Within the PRP group, the concentrations of platelet-derived growth factors were high in patients with a score above the MCID for VAS at 6 months. The incidence of adverse events did not differ between the groups ( P > .05). Conclusion: PRP had better clinical efficacy than HA. High concentrations of growth factors were observed in patients who scored above the MCID for clinical outcomes in the PRP group. These findings indicate that concentration of growth factors needs to be taken into consideration for future investigations of PRP in knee osteoarthritis. Registration: NCT02211521 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).


2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (5) ◽  
pp. 619-626
Author(s):  
Shuji Asai ◽  
Nobunori Takahashi ◽  
Kaoru Nagai ◽  
Tatsuo Watanabe ◽  
Takuya Matsumoto ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document